"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Updates & comments about the movie that exposed the 9/11 scam

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby simonshack on December 28th, 2010, 12:57 pm

brainsandgravy wrote:I would say--two choppers at different distances and similar but different vertical and horizontal angles as evidenced by the parallax with WTC7. You believe this is not possible?


If we are to debate about what we believe is possible or not, I will gladly oblige and follow your line of argumentation:
- Is it possible that (with two hovering choppers shooting the same aerial scene on a similar axis of view) that the most distant one fails to capture as much as a glimpse of the other?
- Is it possible, likewise, that not once during the entire length of the 9/11 WTC broadcasts do we see a stationary TV chopper hovering in the Manhattan airspace? (as per the official tale, there were at least 5 camera-mounted choppers in the air - "Chopper2"(CBS), "Chopper4"(NBC), "Chopper5(FOX)", "Chopper7"(ABC) and "ChopperNYPD"(Pat Walsh).
- To be precise, we do see the NYPD chopper (a.k.a. "PAT") passing over the WTC2 on a couple of "amateur videos" - but the same is nowhere to be seen on the "LIVE TV" broadcasts - nor on many still pictures of the same moment in time/space (WTC2 collapse).
Now, is this at all possible
in the real world? [*watch September Clues Addendum*] http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=UGyW-0MeBOU

NYPD chopper ("Pat")
Image
-
Let me offer a general thought to anyone still believing the 9/11 imagery is real: we researchers are sometimes scoffed at for "making it a question of faith" to trust our own work and observations. I do not agree, but fine - let's pretend for a moment that using rational analyses to provide empirical evidence has anything to do with "faith". If this is so, could we not say the exact same thing about those who try to find some 'reality' in the available 9/11 imagery? Surely, even the most hardened skeptics of the computer animation paradigm must concede that SOME of the countless aberrations pointed out by our work are utterly impossible, insofar that they represent absurd occurences - unexplainable within the realms of authentic photography and the real world. With this in mind, it is certainly a "question of faith" for the naysayers to believe that any of the 9/11 imagery can be trusted. Not the other way round.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6532
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby simonshack on December 28th, 2010, 3:33 pm

Benvenido, rhdpre

Nice catch - yet another absurd shadow (or missing shadow) - I hadn't notice that one before.
In fact, the 9/11 imagery is replete with such dreadful shadows/and lighting aberrations and constitutes some of the best evidence to expose the entire fraud. Here are but three examples of the kind :

Image

Image

Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6532
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby brainsandgravy on December 28th, 2010, 7:17 pm

simonshack wrote:
brainsandgravy wrote:I would say--two choppers at different distances and similar but different vertical and horizontal angles as evidenced by the parallax with WTC7. You believe this is not possible?


If we are to debate about what we believe is possible or not, I will gladly oblige and follow your line of argumentation:
- Is it possible that (with two hovering choppers shooting the same aerial scene on a similar axis of view) that the most distant one fails to capture as much as a glimpse of the other?
- Is it possible, likewise, that not once during the entire length of the 9/11 WTC broadcasts do we see a stationary TV chopper hovering in the Manhattan airspace? (as per the official tale, there were at least 5 camera-mounted choppers in the air - "Chopper2"(CBS), "Chopper4"(NBC), "Chopper5(FOX)", "Chopper7"(ABC) and "ChopperNYPD"(Pat Walsh).
- To be precise, we do see the NYPD chopper (a.k.a. "PAT") passing over the WTC2 on a couple of "amateur videos" - but the same is nowhere to be seen on the "LIVE TV" broadcasts - nor on many still pictures of the same moment in time/space (WTC2 collapse).
Now, is this at all possible
in the real world? [*watch September Clues Addendum*] http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=UGyW-0MeBOU

NYPD chopper ("Pat")
Image
-
Let me offer a general thought to anyone still believing the 9/11 imagery is real: we researchers are sometimes scoffed at for "making it a question of faith" to trust our own work and observations. I do not agree, but fine - let's pretend for a moment that using rational analyses to provide empirical evidence has anything to do with "faith". If this is so, could we not say the exact same thing about those who try to find some 'reality' in the available 9/11 imagery? Surely, even the most hardened skeptics of the computer animation paradigm must concede that SOME of the countless aberrations pointed out by our work are utterly impossible, insofar that they represent absurd occurences - unexplainable within the realms of authentic photography and the real world. With this in mind, it is certainly a "question of faith" for the naysayers to believe that any of the 9/11 imagery can be trusted. Not the other way round.


The news choppers were ordered to keep a distance of at least five miles out. With such extreme zoom being used, the field of view was quite narrow making it easy to avoid another chopper in the frame.

Not ONCE during the live coverage do you see another chopper in view? C'mon now. No need to make things up.

So what's wrong with the bridge again?
brainsandgravy
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: December 23rd, 2010, 7:15 am

Re:

Postby brainsandgravy on December 28th, 2010, 8:39 pm

simonshack wrote:**********Win a free ride on the next NASA mission to planet Mars**********

"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"



And today's clue for allcomers to debunk is... :


THE BLACK STEALTH CHOPPER


Image

This is a 3-second clip extracted - just as you see it - from the "LIVE ITV" 9/11 broadcasts in Great Britain. It was posted on Youtube by an Englishman who recorded the entire morning on his VHS gear. First, we have a purple shot of Manhattan, then a yellow shot with a dramatic close-up of a black chopper.

Note that there is no mention - nor any reason for either of the shots being replays from some other moment in time.


So today's challenge (N°15) is...

Explain where the black chopper was hiding in the purple shot.

Wow a chopper filming with another chopper in the frame. How is that possible?
The captured chopper is not a "stealth" chopper, it's ABC's chopper 7. Why is it not seen in NBC's stationary ("purple")roof-top angle? Answer--the stationary camera was positioned on the roof of the G.E. building at Rockefeller Center approx. four miles from the towers. The two choppers were farther back and zoomed in. Voila! Debunked.
brainsandgravy
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: December 23rd, 2010, 7:15 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby simonshack on December 28th, 2010, 8:42 pm

brainsandgravy wrote:
(1)The news choppers were ordered to keep a distance of at least five miles out. With such extreme zoom being used, the field of view was quite narrow making it easy to avoid another chopper in the frame.

(2)Not ONCE during the live coverage do you see another chopper in view? C'mon now. No need to make things up.

(3)So what's wrong with the bridge again?


(1) Five miles out? Was this one ("NBC's Chopper4") five miles out too?
Image

(2) I presume you are referring to these fly-by choppers? Please read my above text above again, thanks: I mentioned "stationary/hovering choppers".
No need to put words in my mouth.
ImageImage

As for the "black stealth" chopper (see post above), isn't it funny that we cannot see it in the immediately preceding "purple" shot?
(Please note: that ITV video segment is from a continuous, unedited private vhs recording of the LIVE broadcasts).

(3) Oh, there's nothing wrong with that bridge. It's actually quite pretty. The problem is how it behaves in the 9/11 imagery:
Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6532
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby brainsandgravy on December 28th, 2010, 9:13 pm

simonshack wrote:
brainsandgravy wrote:
(1)The news choppers were ordered to keep a distance of at least five miles out. With such extreme zoom being used, the field of view was quite narrow making it easy to avoid another chopper in the frame.

(2)Not ONCE during the live coverage do you see another chopper in view? C'mon now. No need to make things up.

(3)So what's wrong with the bridge again?


(1) Five miles out? Was this one ("NBC's Chopper4") five miles out too?
Image

(2) I presume you are referring to these fly-by choppers? Please read my above text above again, thanks: I mentioned "stationary/hovering choppers".
No need to put words in my mouth.
ImageImage

As for the "black stealth" chopper (see post above), isn't it funny that we cannot see it in the immediately preceding "purple" shot? (Please note that this clip is from a private vhs recording of the LIVE broadcasts).

(3) Oh, there's nothing wrong with that bridge. It's actually quite pretty. The problem is how it behaves in the 9/11 imagery:
Image


Yes the bridge is very poorly behaved--moving all around like that. It must be hard to drive across. Here it is again:
Image
Look how BIG it is being so far from Liberty. It must be fake.
Here are home videos showing the bridge from liberty island--notice how tiny it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0s3RZBZ2FA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqqDlBkVWuc

See the fake video with the huge recalcitrant bridge here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-OWJJbdrpg
brainsandgravy
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: December 23rd, 2010, 7:15 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby ThemDarnBats on December 28th, 2010, 10:43 pm

Well, enjoy your trip to Mars brainsandgravy. Be sure to send back lots photos! :)
ThemDarnBats
Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: November 24th, 2010, 6:19 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby XxCeltics34xX on December 29th, 2010, 1:17 am

how do you explain the bridge moving when the zoom out stops?
XxCeltics34xX
Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 4:02 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby brainsandgravy on December 29th, 2010, 1:42 am

ThemDarnBats wrote:Well, enjoy your trip to Mars brainsandgravy. Be sure to send back lots photos! :)

Thanks for the illuminating response. I guess if you had anything of substance relative to the topic, you would have shared it. I hope you return with photos from your trip to a state of catatonic stupor. Please share when you get back.
Last edited by brainsandgravy on December 29th, 2010, 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
brainsandgravy
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: December 23rd, 2010, 7:15 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby brainsandgravy on December 29th, 2010, 1:49 am

XxCeltics34xX wrote:how do you explain the bridge moving when the zoom out stops?


The helicopter is moving. Have you ever driven down a highway with a large object in the distant background, like a mountain? It will seem to follow you. However, if you zoomed in and focused a camera on an object in the mid-ground, pivoting your camera as you passed it in order to keep it at the center of the frame--the background would appear to move. That's what's happening to the bridge.
brainsandgravy
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: December 23rd, 2010, 7:15 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby simonshack on December 29th, 2010, 4:08 am

brainsandgravy wrote:Look how BIG it is being so far from Liberty. It must be fake.


Dear brainsandgravy,

I have to thank you for providing more elements of proof in support of determining the impossible size of the Verrazzano bridge (in the LIVE 9/11 broadcasts) which, in fact, I had kept a little under wraps since the first release of September Clues back in 2007. As it is, I actually left the bridge issue aside in my subsequent 2008 installment of SC. However, thanks to your welcome input, the issue now appears much more worthy of attention.

In the below graphic, a frame of the 9/11 broadcasts is compared with the "Statue of Liberty" shot that you provided.
The "10" figure represents approx 30 ft - a rough estimate of the section of the Statue of Liberty (total height:151 ft) that matches optically (in height) with the distant Verrazzano pillar. By contrast, what was broadcast on 9/11 showed the Verrazzano pillar as being roughly 10 TIMES taller. The full height of the WTC being 1360 ft, I have roughly (and conservatively) estimated the "100" section as representing 300 ft. Thanks again for pointing this out !

Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6532
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby ThemDarnBats on December 29th, 2010, 7:49 am

brainsandgravy wrote:
ThemDarnBats wrote:Well, enjoy your trip to Mars brainsandgravy. Be sure to send back lots photos! :)

Thanks for the illuminating response. I guess if you had anything of substance relative to the topic, you would have shared it. I hope you return with photos from your trip to a state of catatonic stupor. Please share when you get back.


Woah there, tiger! It was intended as a joke aimed at Mr. Shack, re his fantastic prize which I thought you deserved to win after all the constructive and compelling rebuttal to Simon’s VZ Bridge Clue.

I really enjoyed following this thread over the past 24 hours but it has left me a bit kerfuffled.

I thought the Kevin Willey tutorial on compressing distance and altering perspective does give some meager plausibility to the deranged scale of the bridge
Image Image
and the “New York Luftaufnahmen Tag mit Cineflex” YouTube vid - assuming it is real - demonstrates bizarre behavior of background objects as they appear to accelerate around the foreground object as the camera zooms in on them [1:23 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-OWJJbdrpg ]

Assuming that this must be a very powerful telephoto lens (on a gyro-stabilized camera like what was allegedly used to capture 9/11) then could the incredibly narrow filed of view cause that insane magnification of the bridge as demonstrated in the almost unbelievable Kevin Wiley truck/barn demonstration above? And the backdrop moving so rapidly even though the foreground appears almost still, is this another phenomenon consistent with extreme zoom in telephoto photography?

Some of the other segments in that vid are highly dubious - such as the “let’s have fun with Maya” Chrysler Building shot at 0:14 - but although fakery is pretty likely, is there not plausibility in the Verrazzano bridge shot in said video? If the lense is poweful enough and zoomed all the way in from way out, then utterly maddening distance compression like we see on 9/11 could be possible, no?
ThemDarnBats
Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: November 24th, 2010, 6:19 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby brainsandgravy on December 29th, 2010, 9:08 am

simonshack wrote:
brainsandgravy wrote:Look how BIG it is being so far from Liberty. It must be fake.


Dear brainsandgravy,

I have to thank you for providing more elements of proof in support of determining the impossible size of the Verrazzano bridge (in the LIVE 9/11 broadcasts) which, in fact, I had kept a little under wraps since the first release of September Clues back in 2007. As it is, I actually left the bridge issue aside in my subsequent 2008 installment of SC. However, thanks to your welcome input, the issue now appears much more worthy of attention.

In the below graphic, a frame of the 9/11 broadcasts is compared with the "Statue of Liberty" shot that you provided.
The "10" figure represents approx 30 ft - a rough estimate of the section of the Statue of Liberty (total height:151 ft) that matches optically (in height) with the distant Verrazzano pillar. By contrast, what was broadcast on 9/11 showed the Verrazzano pillar as being roughly 10 TIMES taller. The full height of the WTC being 1360 ft, I have roughly (and conservatively) estimated the "100" section as representing 300 ft. Thanks again for pointing this out !

Image

WTF? Where's your distance factor? You can't compare relative visual sizes without considering distance. I'll say it again--your distance from both objects will affect their relative size visually. THE FARTHER BACK YOU GO, THE BIGGER THE BRIDGE WILL APPEAR IN RELATION TO THE TOWERS. Why? As you move away from objects in your field of view, the objects closer to you will appear to shrink faster than objects farther from you--mid-ground objects sort of "catch-up" to objects in the background appearing closer to their true relative sizes. All you have shown is that the 9/11 clip was filmed from a greater distance than the zoomed-in liberty clip--making the bridge seem relatively "bigger". The bridge size in the 9/11 clip is as expected.
Image

[ADMIN notice: for the purposes of clarity, do not link to outside video. Explain all your points independently - here - even if you have to paraphrase something already said. You are doing great but not with outside links for crutches. Keep it in the ring. -hp]
brainsandgravy
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: December 23rd, 2010, 7:15 am

Re:

Postby brainsandgravy on December 29th, 2010, 10:23 am

simonshack wrote:**********Win a free ride on the next NASA mission to planet Mars**********


Ok, so today I'm starting this little summergame for allcomers - enjoy! It's called :



"DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE !"

(Because, believe it or not, there are STILL people who steadfastly think that the imagery of 9/11
seen on the TV networks and on so-called "amateur footage" was quite real and authentic! :lol: )


Okay--lets debunk some September "Clues". It's pretty entertaining. Here's one--the two NBC shots showing one live and the other filmed from an "identical perspective", but with the back-drop "erased" and a plane added.

Can Simon not identify the sky? Does Simon not understand simple rules of perspective? Can Simon not tell the difference between a stationary camera and one mounted to a helicopter? You be the judge.

Image
Image

Why didn't Simon pay enough attention to notice this?:
Image

Two very different angles would make for two visually differing plane trajectories.

[ADMIN notice: for the purposes of clarity, do not link to outside video. Explain all your points independently - here - even if you have to paraphrase something already said. You are doing great but not with outside links for crutches. Keep it in the ring. -hp]
brainsandgravy
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: December 23rd, 2010, 7:15 am

Re: "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE!"

Postby maiklasLTU on December 29th, 2010, 11:52 am

Finaly someone apart me takes action of trying debunk this :D. I think I'm gonna love this discussion :). It's going to be interesting
maiklasLTU
Member
 
Posts: 19
Joined: September 21st, 2010, 8:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to September Clues - the movie

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest